Re: [PATCH v16 01/18] seccomp: Convert __secure_computing() to return boolean

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
To: "Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>,
	"Jinjie Ruan" <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Cc: oleg@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org,
	mattst88@gmail.com, linmag7@gmail.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org,
	guoren@kernel.org, chenhuacai@kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name,
	geert@linux-m68k.org, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de,
	James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, deller@gmx.de,
	maddy@linux.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com,
	chleroy@kernel.org, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
	aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr, hca@linux.ibm.com,
	gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
	borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
	ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, dalias@libc.org,
	glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, richard@nod.at,
	anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, chris@zankel.net,
	jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org, wad@chromium.org,
	thuth@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ada.coupriediaz@arm.com,
	kevin.brodsky@arm.com, linusw@kernel.org, yeoreum.yun@arm.com,
	song@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
	broonie@kernel.org, liqiang01@kylinos.cn, pengcan@kylinos.cn,
	ryan.roberts@arm.com, yangtiezhu@loongson.cn,
	sshegde@linux.ibm.com, mchauras@linux.ibm.com,
	austin.kim@lge.com, jchrist@linux.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de,
	thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de, sohil.mehta@intel.com,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jgross@suse.com, kas@kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 01/18] seccomp: Convert __secure_computing() to return boolean
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 11:48:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cxx4mmim.ffs@fw13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <akdp6GAu77-ipsXA@kunlun.suse.cz>

On Fri, Jul 03 2026 at 09:51, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:05:59PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> -	if (secure_computing())
>> +	if (!secure_computing())
>>  		return -1;
>
> Hello,
>
> I am not fond of this logic inversion. The boolean is meaningless in
> itself.
>
> Previously -1 was used to indicate that the syscall was filtered but you
> chose to invert the logic choosing true to mean syscall was not filtered.
>
> You could choose true to mean that syscall was fitered avoiding this
> inversion.

That's just wrong. Boolean logic makes more sense with having
(!condition()). Just because the old 0/-1 nonsense had it the other way
round does not mean it has to stay that way.

> Sashiko points out some places in existing code where it supposedly
> explodes which might or might not be true

The vsyscall one is correct, but that's a bug like any other one and should
be caught in review.

The blurb about bypass is AI halluzination nonsense.

> but any in-flight patches that use secure_computing would also be
> affected.

Maintainers know how to deal with collisions of that kind. Stop making
problems up.